Can somebody please prove creationism?

There are at least two creationists on this board and they have spent all of their time trying to disprove evolution and have done nothing in the way of proving creationism. Let's turn the tables around and see how it goes.---"Not knowing something is one thing, refusing to know about it while pretending that you do is something I'd call stupidity." -Faust_8

#2kozlo100Posted 8/14/2013 12:09:38 PM

Are you going to be willing to entertain their sources, or are you going to require them to start from scratch?

I'm thinking that we generally don't go to the trouble of actually vetting the peer review process in these discussions, and we certainly don't validate original research ourselves, so turnabout should be fair play there as well.---Time flies like the wind, and fruit flies like a banana.

The thing is that a lot of creationists seem to assume that it is the default position and it doesn't need to be proved because it is self-evident.

#5Faust_8Posted 8/14/2013 9:52:21 PM

I made a topic with this premise a while back. Nothing happened.

The "self-evident" defense is just the Common Sense Fallacy. If something, anything, is true then it has reasons that it must be so. The Earth isn't a spheroid for no reason, it is because of gravity.

Creationism, if true, will also have reasons for why it is true. We want to see those reasons.

We're tired of seeing misplaced, misinterpreted, and mistaken complaints about evolution being the only "argument" that creationists make. Even if evolution is wrong, you need to prove creationism true.

Also I think it's safe to assume that the TC is only talking about biology here. On this board and many other places, "creationist" is simply someone who doesn't accept evolution, which is strictly a biological theory. Anything else like the age of the Earth and whatnot has to be added onto creationist--like "Young Earth" Creationist. It's an addition to the already provided term. But if it's just "creationist" then I think we can say he just wants the origin of species explained without evolution.

And finally, accepting their sources has never been a problem, kozlo. It's not like we never accept any source we don't want to. We just don't accept propaganda and lies, which is pretty much what creationists try to say is "evidence," coming straight from places like answersingenesis and so on. Those are not trustworthy sources by any definition of the term--they literally admit they ignore any evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Proudly. Truth will not come from people who already decided, before investigation, what the truth is and refuse to waver.

IF a creationist can provide a source from a honest, objective, scientifically-literate person who doesn't lie, exaggerate, misrepresent, quote-mine, ignore data, or assume a conclusion from the start, AND can demonstrably show that magical creation explains life as we know it better than evolution does, I will accept it.

If that's even possible. After all, is it possible to have a trustworthy source telling you that Los Angeles and New York are 12 inches apart?---I'm not against religion. I'm against all bad ideas, held for bad reasons, prompting bad behavior.

#6TheRealJiraiyaPosted 8/14/2013 9:53:38 PM

The more common approach is to make the issue sound unknown and up for grabs and then to be like "believe what you like, but I believe THIS"---Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?"And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" -Isaiah 6:8

#7DarkContractorPosted 8/15/2013 11:10:38 AM

TheRealJiraiya posted...

The more common approach is to make the issue sound unknown and up for grabs and then to be like "believe what you like, but I believe THIS"

that can really be said of all religion tbqh---http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.

#8Wandering__HeroPosted 8/15/2013 1:14:07 PM

Expect them to ignore this thread or give you a weak explanation without changing their views. As I said, it takes more than nitpicking on a message board to cause someone to have a crisis of faith---Click the sites these contain to donate to charity for free http://www.thenonprofits.com/

#9JonWood007Posted 8/15/2013 1:37:35 PM

Or they'll pull some mindfudge in which they try to argue a position of factual relativism. Or they'll get overly philosophical while skirting the entire issue. Or they'll complain about how biased and closed minded you are.

Are you going to be willing to entertain their sources, or are you going to require them to start from scratch?

I'm thinking that we generally don't go to the trouble of actually vetting the peer review process in these discussions, and we certainly don't validate original research ourselves, so turnabout should be fair play there as well.

It honestly depends on how things go. So long as they use honest sources (i.e. not Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort) I'll be willing to suspend my scientific requirement, and I won't even require sources so long as they understand that I will be providing sources. Of course, I expect people to use sources whenever they dispute my own. It's only fair.

Any, but I'd prefer YEC or OEC (so long as it's clearly defined). ID and Theistic Evolution are not ideal because of the "You're right, but magic started it" principle.---"Not knowing something is one thing, refusing to know about it while pretending that you do is something I'd call stupidity." -Faust_8